Just recently this question arose once again when the Canadian Journal of Zoology (CJZ) published a research article by Dave Hervieux, Mark Hebblewhite, Dave Stepnisky, Michelle Bacon, and Stan Boutin titled "Managing wolves (Canis lupus) to recover threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta" that presented the outcome of an "experiment" in mass killing in which 890 Canadian wolves suffered and died using aerial gunning, trapping, and poisoning with strychnine. The strychnine also killed other animals who were not part of the study. Minimum "collateral damage" that was deemed acceptable by the researchers and the CJZ included 91 ravens, 36 coyotes, 31 foxes, 8 marten, 6 lynx, 4 weasels, and 4 fisher. (For more on how wolves are highly stressed when hunted please see "Wolves: Hunting Affects Stress, Reproduction, and Sociality.")

Part of the Methods section of this paper reads as follows (references can be found in the link above): "Wolf packs were located from a helicopter and one or more wolves per pack were captured using net-gunning techniques and fit with a VHF radio collar. Using a helicopter, we then subsequently attempted to lethally remove all remaining members of each pack through aerial-shooting throughout the winter (sensu Courchamp et al. 2003; Hayes et al. 2003), with the radio-collared wolves removed at the end of winter. Wolf captures were conducted according to Alberta Wildlife Animal Care Committee class protocol No. 009 (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2005)..."

Furthermore, "We also established toxicant bait stations, using strychnine, to augment aerial shooting and to target wolves that could not be found or removed using aerial-shooting. Strychnine is permitted for use in Alberta for the purpose of predator control (authorized by Government of Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency following specific provisions outlined in Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division’s 'Standards'.”

It's important also to note that this mass killing did not work, not that it would even be remotely justified if it did. As stated in the abstract of the research paper, "Although the wolf population reduction program appeared to stabilize the Little Smoky population, it did not lead to population increase [of caribou] ..."

When I told some colleagues and friends about this study they were incredulous and aghast. Cloaked in a lab coat and under the guise of conservation biology, this egregious study raises serious questions about oversight and approval of lethal research involving wild animals. It is hard to imagine any other scientific investigation of a wild mammal being organized around the principle of mass killing. The inhumane methods used to experimentally “euthanize” the wolves are of the type used years ago and widely abandoned as unethical because of their inhumaneness. And, of course, the wolves were not euthanized, which suggests they were killed to end interminable pain and suffering.

The approach demonstrated in this paper reflects exactly why animal care committees were created to provide oversight on research methods and to avoid research being conducted and published that clearly fails to meet even minimum ethical standards. This research and publication represents the systematic moral failure of the Alberta government, participating universities, the Canadian Journal of Zoology, and individual scientists who carried out the study.

How did this study ever get approved and conducted?

Of course, the main question at hand is, "How did this study ever get approved and conducted?" This question must be aired and discussed openly and widely. One colleague asked me, "How can these researchers sleep at night?" Frankly, I have no idea. I also pondered why a study like this can be approved, conducted, and published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet people get furious, as they should, when a dog is shot, trapped, or poisoned.

I was sickened when I learned about this so-called study, and remain incredulous that it was conducted. Simply put, this reprehensible study sets an unethical, inhumane, and horrific precedent that must be universally opposed.

This essay was written with Dr. Paul Paquet who works with the Raincoast Conservation Foundation. The teaser image can be seen here (no permission needed).

If this wasn't true I would think this study was a spoof done by The Onion. But, sadly, it is not. But it is a perversion of morality in the name of science.

This study represents everything wrong with our relationship with wild animals and exemplifies why "management" is typically a code word for killing. This study also reminds us that institutional review boards and "welfare guidelines" are not enough.

Compassionate Conservation, on the other hand, is an approach which takes into account each individual (human or nonhuman) and preserves the inherent rights of all to thrive. This study is the antithesis of that approach.

We should let the investigators and the Canadian Journal of Zoology know that this kind of "experiment" is not acceptable for any reason.

I do get very angry when reading these kind of polarized comments by you Rosa, just as much as when I read the psychotic torture loving sports hunters comments.
When people see things as black or white then rational thinking and knowledge has passed by long ago.
Homo sapiens is essentially a predator, and it's been a large part of our evolutionary progress.
To say that anyone eating any kind of meat is supporting the ecological and environmental disaster we are now allowing is very narrow minded.
To me a lot of vegans and vegetarians are just as indoctrinated and sect like as the psycho sports hunters are.
You are saying that Inuits and indigenous of remote areas like the Amazon are supporting the destruction of our planet.
You try to survive on vegetables in the Arctic, or even in the Amazon for a life time.

Cows for example would not exist unless they were bred from wild species for their suitability to be easily held for meat, which lessened the pressure on wildlife through hunting.

The problem is not the eating of meat, it's how we TREAT the species we breed for eating and in what AMOUNTS we breed and eat them. The problem is the amount of humans increasingly taking over every area of our planet leaving nothing left to wildlife and their important migrations or natural territories. Leaving nothing for the so important ecological balanced needed even for our own survival.

I wonder how much you, as with many vegans and vegetarians, are doing concretely to help the wildlife.
I don't eat much meat but I do eat. I've decrease the amount through the years.

But more importantly, I use every minute of every day until I go to bed to:
write articles to enlighten people about the importance of a balanced nature and working ecology.
write articles about wolves and predators.
write to politicians.
write programs for political parties in regards to the importance of predators.
Volunteer my help to set up predator fencing to cattle ranchers.
Go out in the field to peacefully annoy hunters when they try to kill our wolves, constantly getting threatened to death by hunters.
Support several organizations for the preservation of wolves/predators, both actively and with money.
Wander the forest in search for illegal traps.
Photograph wildlife (am a wildlife photographer) and give my photos for free for the good causes.
Work for an environmental organization for a salary 98% would never accept living on.
And MUCH more

Yet in the eyes of fanatic self righteous people like you I'm still earths scum.
I do wonder how much you are really doing to help wildlife and in particular, in this case, wolves. How much of your life and how much in your life are YOU sacrificing?

Bison and mustangs are being killed who are seen as "competing" with cattle on the range for grazing, or passing on some disease to cattle. Any sentient free-living animals seen as "competing" with "food" animals anywhere are "managed" (killed) for the benefit of ranchers and meat-eating consumers. As the global human overpopulation continues to expand unchecked and demand to consume meat, dairy, and eggs, more and more domestic and free-living animals will be targets for elimination either in the slaughterhouse or in nature.

Words fail me. I cannot comprehend the audacity and callousness of "scientists" perverting their mandate to learn about wolves by exterminating, with cruelty, 890 wild animals. How dare they do this in the name of Science. The Alberta government, participating universities, Canadian Journal of Zoology and scientist should be ashamed of themselves. Any child in kindergarten would know this so called experiment was bogus and unnecessary. Torturing one species of animal to help a different species is never legitimate: the end does not justify the means.

Reading this makes me think that the Animal Use Committees in Canada must be as secretive as the ones here. In Texas, the public is not even permitted to attend an Animal Use Committee meeting. Attendance is limited to those who profit from the research. No wonder atrocities are committed in the name of science.

As a Canadian, I have watched the continuous removal of environmental protections, and the muzzling and firing of the provincial and federal governments' own scientists, and believe that this is rooted to the Harper government's encouragement and support of the Alberta tar sands, and oil and mineral development in general.

If vast stretches of their ranges in Alberta are disturbed and invaded - in some areas as much as 95% - the caribou DO become easier targets for wolves. But slaughtering wolves only hides the exponential growth of development.

This is also why the polar bears are not protected here - any restrictions would interfere with the off-shore mining and drilling that is becoming possible - because of the same global warming that is endangering the polar bears.

I think if you speak with any of the reputable environmental scientists here, they will tell you the same thing. In fact, this past October, 800 international scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian government regarding its silencing of scientists.

I've just read the revenues from all existing and new tar sands projects exceeded $2,484 billion in 2013. I believe that's why wolves in Alberta are slaughtered - and "research" like this is funded.

I read the original research yesterday morning, and remain haunted and troubled.

There is a sad parallel to be drawn between conservation practice in Canada and Australia. Australian conservation, similarly panic-driven, has left very little room for restraint in how (and how many) animals are killed for native biodiversity.

One example of this is the horrendous Judas collar method, in which a female wild donkey is radio-collared and set free to return to her family, leading the shooters to them. She is allowed to live like this for as long as she is usefully seeking out the companionship of other donkeys. But whenever she does, she is doomed to see them shot down
(see for example http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/06/10/3241245.htm).

I therefore remain deeply shaken to find out that this very method was used over the past seven years to kill hundreds of wolves in Canada, in the hope that this would help recover woodland caribou (all the while, I just learned, caribou are killed as 'pests' in Alaska).

There are many aspects to this study that are shocking: the use of strychnine, the sheer number of wolves killed, the number of non-target animals killed, and that this was done "to make the world a better place". I have spent years pleading with farmers to restrain their impulse to kill predators to protect their livestock. What chance do we have if the same predators are killed to protect the "livestock" of conservationists? From a scientific perspective I was also disappointed with the absence of consideration given to the difference between the ecological influence of a socially-stable wolf population verses a socially-disrupted one. There is more to wolves than numbers.

But what continually haunts me is the thought of the Judas wolves, whose family members were gunned downed one by one until - and perhaps mercifully - they were then killed too.

in canada there seems to be this concept that there is lots of wildlife so whats a few thousand dead? the politicians who okay this type of mentality have very little knowledge of the subject matter and probably dont care as long as they can still get a pay cheque. I know that very few have ever heard of trophic cascade and the implications this concept has; otherwise this killing would never have happened.

How the heck did this get animal ethics approval???!!!
How is it possible that the CCAC (Canadian Council of Animal Care) did not get involved??!!
This would have never passed here at Dalhousie U. (yes, a Canadian university).